ecoculture, geophilosophy, mediapolitics

Green new dealing it…

For someone who teaches media and environment, it’s heartening to see people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and one of her advisors, Cornell legal star Robert Hockett, break through the media din. Even Tucker Carlson had to admit that “it’s nice to have a smart person” on his show to explain things. (Students, take note.)

First, Ocasio-Cortez:

Now, on the Green New Deal (her big announcement of the week), Hockett:

For an indicator of how rare it is to break into the right-wing noise machine, there are countless examples like this one (“Green Deal Disaster”) or the 4-to-1 gang-up here (where Juan Williams impressively holds his own):

But it’s interesting how the hard facts manage to sneak in even despite their best efforts — see at 3’36” here (“So it’s only gonna slow down climate change… So it’s Miami that gets flooded instead of some other cities.”):

Take-home lessons from all of this?

1. Move quickly and dramatically, even if it means taking risks. Like putting stuff out with not fully vetted language. Apparently Ocasio-Cortez’s first draft had that “unwilling to work” language that Hockett denies. I don’t see the original on her web site, and it’s not entirely clear to me where the version being shared came from. But does it matter? Not really, since first draft statements go through multiple iterations, critiques, and revisions — the public policy version of “peer review” — before they become legislation, so debating something that isn’t current just drags people into the political point-scoring game, which builds up one’s political base but fails to convince the “undecided” center. The latter space is where things ultimately have to be. See note 1.

2. Speak to the other side (and all sides), and don’t be cowed. Hockett, Williams (above), and Ocasio-Cortez all show the importance of keeping to your wits even when you’re being attacked from all sides (viz. Williams).

1. I’m not defending Hockett’s denial of the original line. But if it was in AOC’s original text, Hockett’s claim that “we” aren’t saying that could be taken to mean that since he joined the advisory team that line hasn’t been there.↩

it’s counterproductive to treat (and give credence to) propagandists as reporters and of course (except for elected officials who represent all kinds of people) it can be a predictable waste of time to talk to people who form their identity in opposition to yours, say like:https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ocasio-cortez-adviser-admits-he-falsely-claimed-green-new-deal-didnt-promise-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work
we have very little time and few resources much better spent on getting things done, the substantial political question is can the AOC camp force Pelosi to shift her position or will her staff undermine them as they already are on healthcare.
also if the new dealers can’t commit up front that they will have pick winners and losers in terms of investments (and regulation) but will leave it up to market forces to sort it all out they might was well use the money and time for other things…

I agree that resources need to be spent wisely… but it’s not always clear to me what counts as “getting things done” and what’s a waste of time. I tell my students that we need all kinds of skills and capacities to “get things done” — some will write policy papers or build political coalitions, others will write songs or make art, others will build solar panels, grow food, and talk to their neighbors. But I also tell them to watch for opportunities that may arise (like being called up and asked for a TV interview… which I suspect is what happened to Hockett here).

We were not all aware of all irrelevant documents that rightwing bullshitters were on about that day immediately following the announcement of the Resolution. After all, we were running from (good faith) interview to (good faith) interview all day, at which we were asked about the actual Resolution. It would have been cleverer of us all to say simply that only the Resolution is relevant when later asked about other things by bad faith bullshitters, rather than assuming they wanted in good faith to talk about the actual plan. Because in fact only the Resolution WAS and IS relevant, however, it is all we need talk about now.

Thanks for that comment, Robert. I agree that only the Resolution should be relevant. Of course Republicans (and their supporters in the media) will look for any opportunity to trip us up to “reveal” the “crazy socialism” Democrats are supposedly aiming for ;-). (Note Trump’s refrains about socialism and communism in Florida yesterday — they’ve clearly become his talking points in the lead-up to 2020.)